On Wed, Aug 08, 2012 at 02:22:48PM +0100, Phil Holmes wrote: > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Graham Percival" > <[email protected]> > To: "Phil Holmes" <[email protected]> > I'm content to propose changes myself. But I really don't think 200 > patches on Rietveld and 200 issues are the way to go.
It doesn't need to be 200 patches. If I'm correct about half the issues being typos, then I'd suggest making 4 patches with about 25 regtest-typo-fixes in each. That's quite reviewable; spending maybe 1 hour, once a week, will clear up the backlog of typos in a month. Of course, the amount of "trivial" changes was a complete guess; I don't have the actual data. But I'm fairly confident about the power-log distribution; it holds true in so many other situations that I think it's a reasonable first guess in this one (in the absense of any actual data). Once those are gone, we can think about the others. Maybe there's a bunch of beaming regtests that need extra attention, but developer X is currently working on beaming so he could offer to take care of those dozen regtests. (and then he could submit those fixes as either one patch or multiple patches depending on what else he's working on). Maybe somebody is fixing slur collisions, and thus it makes sense for him to fix those 20 slur regtests. etc. - Graham _______________________________________________ lilypond-devel mailing list [email protected] https://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/lilypond-devel
